It’s time to say au revoir to Quebec

For most of my life, I was a faithful federalist. Notwithstanding the political inanities and corruption endemic in Quebec, I felt that the preservation of our confederation was worth the concessions by the rest of Canada. I believed that without Quebec, Canada would be diminished, as would Quebec without Canada.
Seven years in Ottawa as a Reform Party MP severely weakened my dedication, which has since been further eroded by Quebec’s irascibility with respect to federal/provincial relations and constant demands on the rest of us for more money to support social programs that no other province can afford. It’s outrageous that taxpayers in other provinces are required to pay a premium so that Quebec can enjoy such goodies as as public construction costs outrageously padded by les gars and university tuition at less than half the level paid in the rest of the country.
For me, the final straw has been two months of clamorous and sometimes violent and destructive demonstrations by les enfants gatés vomited out by Quebec’s institutions of higher learning. If the province’s future political and economic elites are too greedy and stupid to realize that life in the real world isn’t one continuous visit to the free lunch counter, there is no hope for Quebec society.
Now, spineless Premier Jean Charest wants to compromise with the students. Quebec is clearly terminally infected with the Greek disease. Canada can no longer afford our relationship so, I say to the PQ and my old parliamentary colleagues in the BQ, please hold another referendum and win. In negotiating terms of separation, the government of Canada should be generous because, whatever the cost, Canada will be well rid of this sick society.Lee Morrison, Calgary.

Quebec student protesters claim they want to smash the state (but only in figurative sense). Hasn’t it occurred to them that the state is the source of funding they are seeking? Shouldn’t they be chanting “5,6,7,8, organize to enlarge the state’?
One protester goes on about re-establishing democracy and that decisions are made without listening to the people. I wonder if the protesters have considered the possibility that the decisions by the Quebec provincial government were the result of the government listening to the majority of people who aren’t students? Brendan Burgart, Vancouver.

We can’t have democracy mucking up our democracy

Re: A Parody Of ‘Protest,’ Rex Murphy, April 28.
Hear hear. What we should do is have a panel of experts who decide what’s a serious protest and what’s a joke protest. This panel should be comprised of CBC commentators like Rex Murphy, because they know how to tell merely self-interested people from people with moral arguments. If a protest is determined by this panel to be a joke, then it should be put down immediately. Can’t have democracy mucking up our democracy, can we? Brian Gracie, Montreal.

Stephen Harper, stop calling

In the past two weeks I have been literally inundated by two Conservative calls to my home phone. The first was to gauge my interest in Stephen Harper in the event of a next election (refused to answer), and the second was to tell me about “Thomas Mulcair’s disastrous carbon tax” (I stopped her before she could continue with the script).
I don’t fault the callers, I just wish that I could’ve yelled at them: “For crying out loud, Stephen Harper already has a majority! What more does he want?” These recent call-outs aren’t only intrusive, they violate my privacy as a voter. How did they get my number, or know that I support the Conservatives? It all comes off as petty and paranoid.
Mr. Harper has decimated the Liberals, sidelined the Bloc Québécois, and now he’s scared that the resurgent NDP can knock him off? This only proves that he finally has an opponent he can’t dismiss.
And as in the Ottawa Senators vs. N.Y. Rangers playoff series, sometimes it’s dangerous to underestimate the number 8 seed. They might give you a run for the money, if you give them a chance. David C. Staples, Yellowknife.

Let’s talk about abortion

Re: The Absence Of Reason, Andrew Coyne, April 28.
I read with interest Andrew Coyne’s piece on Parliamant’s de facto muzzle on the question of abortion. What is democracy for, if not to allow the free and respectful exchange of ideas? It is well known that the public is divided on the matter. To preclude the discussion is, at best, un-democratic and thereby un-Canadian. Kyle Neilson, Vancouver.

Andrew Coyne encourages a renewed debate on legislating abortion in the interest of democracy and upholding the original intent of the Supreme Court. However refreshing this seems, there is danger in forcing the rigid rule of law upon a polymorphous health-care issue.
There is already a medico-ethical check and balance that serves the purpose for which most people seek to legislate abortion: namely to prevent the careless or flippant abortion. Termination of pregnancy after the limits of viability (generally 22-24 weeks gestation) typically requires a thorough medical and ethical review by an interdisciplinary team of health-care professionals. In addition, these terminations are usually only performed in a few, select centres. Terminations after the limits of viability are more commonly related to significant fetal anomalies, which are often not detected until after 24 weeks.
And therein lies the issue with creating a law that would, arbitrarily, define the ease of access to a therapeutic abortion. Wherever the line in the sand is drawn, there will always be cases where a pregnant woman will discover that her unborn baby has a severe, possibly fatal condition, after passing this gestational legal window. With such legislative oversight, she would then be obligated to subject herself to the substantial maternal risks of childbirth (C-section, infections, bleeding and, rarely, death).
Legislation is not the best way to protect the unborn fetus; in fact the current system in Canada already provides what the Supreme Court seeks. Dan Weisz, Toronto.

Judge Bertha Wilson’s common sense ruling that a woman has a total right to an abortion in the early stages has no correlation with Conservative MP Stephen Woodworth’s attempt to have the fetus declared a “human being”. Abortions performed by anyone but a qualified doctor is illegal in Canada and no doctor would perform a late-stage abortion unless it was necessary to save the life of the woman. Judge Wilson’s ruling emphasizes the necessity to expedite wanted abortions at the earliest possible date.
So why is Andrew Coyne dredging up the subject when there are so many real issues for debate? Doris Wrench Eisler, St. Albert, Alta.

Re: Abortion Reality, letter to the editor, April 28.
Letter writer Marnie McCall creates her own “misconception” when she quotes the percentages of abortion rates by gestational ages based on 2010 abortion statistics. She bases her conclusions on the 2010 statistics by the Canadian Institute of Health Information for gestational age abortions. What she failed to reveal, however, was that those statistics represent only about a quarter of all the abortions committed in a year (27,576 hospital abortions). The reason for this low number is because Quebec has not yet reported their abortion numbers for 2010. As well these numbers do not include abortions done in clinics.
She states that “abortions after 20 weeks are usually performed because the woman’s health or life is in serious danger or the fetus has a severe or lethal abnormality.” We have no way to know what the reasons for these late-term abortions are, since reasons are not reported or captured.
Likewise, we do not know if “abortions after 24 weeks are exceedingly rare.” Of the 27,576 abortions used in her calculations, 4,908 were of unknown gestational age.
The reason we have such incomplete information is because reporting is voluntary. As long as that is the case, we will continue to have inaccurate numbers. Worse, we will continue to have people make faulty conclusions based on incomplete information. Patricia Maloney, Ottawa.

Even jail could not silence Black

Re: Conrad Black Expected To Be Released From Prison On Friday, April 30.
I wish Conrad Black a wholehearted welcome back to freedom which he so richly deserves. Actually, against all odds, he never really lost all his freedom, did he? At least he did not lose his freedom of speech and his ability to communicate. We should be thankful for such blessings. Even the aggressive U.S. federal prosecution system and its litigiously enabling culture could not silence him. Len Vopnfjord, North Saanich, B.C.

Do we want Black Back?

Once Conrad Black is released from his U.S. prison, should Canada welcome him back? Let us know in 75 words by 2 p.m. EDT on Friday. Send succinct responses to letters@nationalpost.com and include your name and hometown.

No one tougher than Armstrong

Re: Whitfield Versus Armstrong: You Think You’re Tough?, April 27.
Years ago I completed three Hawaii Ironman competitions and more than 30 other triathlons around the world. Simon Whitfield is a warrior and one on my heros but Lance Armstrong (who I dislike greatly) is correct. An Olympic distance triathlon with drafting is a “shampoo, blow dry and 10 km foot race” compared to what Mr. Armstrong does (at a world class level). Gary S. Joseph, Toronto.

Fire Bev Oda (III)

Re: Memo To Harper: Fire Bev Oda (II), letters to the editor, April 27.
Bev Oda’s recent London shenanigans are a disgrace to moral principles. She should grow a moral backbone and resign. The Conservatives are looking more and more like a party that has been in power too long. Stephen Harper, please keep in mind that the privilege to govern is awarded by the people. John Lawlor, Ottawa.

It is said that ethics is knowing what one has the right to do, and what is right to do. Bev Oda and many politicians and senior bureaucrats have forgotten this distinction. Brian Summers, Richmond, B.C.

New York’s lesson for Vancouver

Re: ‘Kids On The Street,’ Michael Comrie, April 26.
I moved to Vancouver from New York, where I raised a toddler in Hell’s Kitchen, the formerly rough and tumble ’hood where West Side Story and On the Waterfront were set. Compared to the suburban teenagers I have met, many of whom seem disconnected, bored and depressed, I have often found urban kids to be better-adjusted, happier and more street-smart.
Although perhaps not his intention, Mr. Comrie shows that Vancouver today does not offer the choice of a stimulating, affordable environment in which to safely raise urban kids in appropriate housing.
In the 1970s, Manhattan was characterized by flight of the middle class to the suburbs, and the Bronx was burning. Decades later, from the Upper West Side to the Lower East Side, one trips over triplet baby strollers clogging the sidewalks outside crowded cafés. New York’s middle class renaissance reversed the city’s accelerating decline and urban blight.
I would love my daughter once again to be raised in a stimulating urban neighbourhood. I wonder if the “world’s most livable city” might benefit from reconsidering the policies that could be impeding a family-oriented renaissance in its urban core. New York’s Lower Eastside, and Hell’s Kitchen have replaced drugs central with baby stroller central. Can Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside do so too? Dan Granirer, Vancouver.

Israeli reality

Re: Palestinian Reality, letter to the editor, April 28.
Letter-writer Allan H. Adams supports the contention of Gershon Geronberg that “certain occupied Palestinian lands were taken over by radical settlers.”
In doing so, he dismisses the comment put forward by letter-writer Ezra Franken that these are “Jewish outposts established on barren Judean hilltops, with no local Arabs displaced”.
Mr. Adams concludes with the thought that “When you break into someone’s house, whether or not you steal the family silver or last night’s discarded dinner scraps, it is still theft, and it is still wrong.”
What he overlooks is that these hilltops (and the land) are referred to as “Judean,” the ownership of which, through the centuries, has not been ceded to the Palestinians or anyone else.
When the Palestinians appreciate the great benefit that peace could bring to them and the region, then the need for Jewish outposts will no longer be there and negotiations will take place to resolve these issues. Sam Mitnick, Cote St. Luc, Que.

Allan H. Adams uses this analogy to describe Jewish settlers in Judea: “When you break into someone’s house, … it is still theft, and it is wrong.”
No, Mr. Adams. This is the correct analogy: After being forcibly removed from your home, and, when you later make an attempt to get it back, you find strangers living there, who hve not legally purchased the house nor are paying rent. So, instead of demanding your house back in its entirety, you meekly request permission to sleep in the empty guest room, while the squatters continue to sleep in the master bedroom. Alex P. Korn, Toronto.

There has never been a Palestinian land. The only Palestinians were Jews. And you can’t break into your own home. Rabbi David Spiro, Toronto.